1. The defendant is respectively indicated in the attached Form No. 2, 3, 4, 16, 15, and 2 among the land size of 270 square meters in the Gyeong-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. After purchasing the instant land on March 11, 2008 and completing the registration of ownership transfer on March 14, 2008, D completed the registration of ownership transfer on 1/10 of that portion to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) on October 4, 2016.

B. The Defendant is the owner of 729 square meters and a house on its ground adjacent to the instant land, and part of the warehouse building constructed by the Defendant on the instant land was constructed on the part of “bb” as indicated in paragraph (1) of the main text of the instant land (hereinafter “B”).

C. For access to the above house, the Defendant has used the package as a package created with three square meters and two square meters or more as indicated in the purport of the claim among the instant land (hereinafter “the second part of dispute”).

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 11-13; Eul evidence Nos. 1-3; the result of this court’s commission of survey and appraisal; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the claim for removal and delivery related to the part of the first dispute

A. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant is obligated to remove the first part of the ground dispute and deliver the first part of the first part to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) as it occupied and used the first part of the warehouse building in this case without permission, thereby hindering the exercise of ownership over the land by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed D. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to remove the first part of the ground dispute and deliver the first part of the first part.

B. The defendant has long constructed the above warehouse building and occupied the first warehouse part for not less than 20 years, and thus, the acquisition by prescription is completed. Thus, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim. However, there is no evidence to deem that the defendant occupied the first warehouse part for not less than 20 years due to the construction of the above warehouse building. Thus, the above defense is without merit.

3. As to the claim for delivery in relation to the second dispute

A. The Defendant alleged the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) uses part of the instant land without permission while using the part of the second dispute as the passage.